2026:JHHC:11377 1 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 27 od 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (SJ) No. 27 of 2026 Anirudh Singh, aged about -75 years, son of Late Srinath Singh, permanent resident of village Jabra, P.O.- Jabra, P.S.- Simariya, Dist: Chatra, Jharkhand At present residing at through Ashish Kumar Sinha, Lohsinghna Road, Near Event Public School, P.O. + P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazraibagh …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sikandar Kumar Mahato 3.Ajay Kumar Mahato Both sons of Late Jagpati Mahto @ Jagatpal Mahato, R/o Vill- Piska Nagdi, P.O.+P.S.- Nagdi, Dist.-Ranchi ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. 18.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel the appellant and the learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has acquitted the respondent no.2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 1181 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 4314 of 2015 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the private respondents for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a written report by the informant- Aniruddha Singh. The brief story as per the informant is that he is the owner of Truck bearing registration no. HR63-3173 chassis no.-426021 JV 2131791 and engine no.-40J62356452. Since he is very his Truck was 2026:JHHC:11377 2 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 27 od 2026 being taken care of by his son namely Angad Kumar. He expressed his wish to sell the said Truck before many persons and the accused persons Sikandar Kumar Mahto and Ajay Kumar Mahto who were friends of his son, expressed their willingness to purchase the Truck. The sale price of the Truck was agreed as per the agreement dated 02.09.2012 to be Rs. 5,05,000/- out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was to be given in advance and Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be given at time of registration and remaining 1,05,000/- had to be given by the accused to the informant within 15 days of registration. The agreement dated 02.09.2012 bears signatures of accused Sikandar Mahto and witness Anil Kumar. The prosecution case is further that on 02.09.2012 the accused gave Rs.1,40,000/- cash and a cheque no.-00040 of Rs.55,000/- of Bank of India, Nagadi Branch, Ranchi to the complainant to which he presented for encashment in the bank but the bank official returned the cheque stating that there is insufficient amount in the bank account. On 02.09.2012 the complainant handed over the said Truck to the accused who got the Truck inspected by a mechanic and after being satisfied of the condition took the same in their possession and started using it in their business. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly made demand of remaining balance amount but neither the accused paid the remaining amount nor tried to get the Truck registered. The prosecution case is further that suddenly, on 08.05.2015 the accused persons gave a legal notice to Angad Singh, the son of the informant alleging that he has sold a Truck in a dilapidated condition to them. Despite not being its registered owner and despite repeated request neither handed over the Truck nor transferred registration in their names. The informant gave reply of said legal notice to the accused persons on 23.05.2015 and after receiving the said reply, on 14.08.2015 at about 11:00 am the accused persons came at informant's house at Lohsingha Road being armed with revolver, iron rod etc. along with some goons and assaulted the 2026:JHHC:11377 3 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 27 od 2026 informant and his son and said that they will neither return the Truck nor pay the remaining amount. On their outcry, witness started assembling and seeing them arriving, the accused Sikandar Kumar Mahto took out Rs,7,500/- from his son's pocket that he had kept for business. While departing from there they told that they have sold the Truck to some other person. It is therefore, alleged that accused persons have cheated him. 4. After investigation the I.O has submitted charge sheet no. 62/2016 dated 31.05.2016 for offences u/s 420, 406, 323, 379, 504, 506/34 of the IPC against them and on the basis of the charge sheet the Ld. JMFC, Hazaribag took cognizance u/s- 420,506,323,379,504,506/34 IPC against them. 5. On 03.08.2017 charges for offence u/s 420,406,323,379,504,506/34 IPC read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charge altogether five prosecution witnesses has been examined which is as follows: I. P.W.1 – Husnain Ahamd –He is an independent witness II. P.W.2 – Raj Kishore Singh – He is also an independent witness III. P.W.3-Angad Kumar Singh- He is the son of the informant. IV. P.W.4-Ram Pravesh Paswan- He is the Investigating Officer of the case. V. P.W.5- Aniruddha Singh- He is the informant of the case. 7. Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution has also adduced some documentary evidences as under: I. Ext.-1- Charge sheet II. Ext.2-Signature of the Officer in charge on Forwarding III. Ext. 2/1-Endorsement 2026:JHHC:11377 4 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 27 od 2026 IV. Ext.3-Formal F.I.R V. Ext. 4- Owner Book VI. Ext. 5-Agreement( with objection) VII. Ext. 6- Cheque no. 00040 VIII. Ext.7- Legal notice dated 08.05.2015 IX. Ext. 8-Reply dated 23.05.2015 of legal notice X. Ext.-9 to 9/5- Informant’s signature over every page on complaint petition. 8. The defence has also produced one witness as I. D.W.1- Amarjeet Sharma- Independent witness 9. Defence has also adduced documentary evidence as under: I. Ext.A- Affidavit by accused under Section 41 Cr.P.C. 10. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidences available on record has convicted the accused / respondent no.2 and 3 for the offence u/s 406 of the IPC, however, they were acquitted for the offence u/s 323,341,420,504 and 506 IPC. 11. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2025 before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Hazaribag. The learned appellate court after scrutinizing the evidences has acquitted the aforesaid accused from charge under Section 406 of the IPC. 12. Being aggrieved with the order of acquittal by the appellate court, the informant has preferred this acquittal appeal. 13. Section 406 of the IPC reads as under: “406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 14. It is a crime against entrustment. In a case of sale and purchase of property, there is no question of entrustment and the ingredients of Section 406 IPC are not present and in such a situation a person 2026:JHHC:11377 5 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 27 od 2026 cannot be punished under section 406 IPC. 15. This Court has gone through the entire record and the story disclosed by the prosecution and the materials brought on record clearly suggest that it is sale and purchase of the Truck in question. Since there is no entrustment and as such, the appellate court has rightly acquitted the respondent no. 3 and 4 of the charge leveled against them. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge- VIII, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 81of 2025. 17. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 18th April 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/____/2026